omar_gabriel Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 here are the spec of this Canon lens, I like to know if this lens is good or not from experience users A new and affordable L-series ultra-wide-angle zoom lens that's ideal for both film and digital SLRs. Superior optics are assured by the use of three aspherical lens elements, in addition to a Super UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) glass element. Optical coatings are optimized for use with digital cameras. This lens focuses as close as 11 inches (0.28m), and offers both Canon's full- time manual focus and a powerful ring-type USM for fast and silent AF. It has a constant f/4 maximum aperture, and offers the choice of screw-in 77mm filters or a holder in the rear of the lens for up to three gel filters. Finally, it offers weather-resistant construction similar to other high-end L-series lenses. About half the price of the 16-35 f/2.8 lens, this L-series lens has an entirely new optical design with three Aspherical elements and a Super UD-glass element. The combination provides superb contrast and sharpness, even at the widest settings. It's ideal for both film and digital SLRs, and features the same weather-resistant design, rear gel filter holder, and high-speed Ultrasonic Motor as the EF 16-35mm lens. Features EF mount; ultra-wide zoom lens Super Ultra-low Dispersion glass; inner focusing; aspherical lens; full-time manual focus 17-40mm focal length f/4 constant maximum aperture Ring-type UltraSonic Motor (USM) is this lens any Good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I think it's a jim-dandy optic, kickass in everyway. My review of the 17-40 4L: http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef17-40usm.htm Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh_ross1 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 It's a great lens except for only being f/4. The 16-35 gets you f/2.8. Otherwise it's awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Basically what was written above: my personal slant is: I used it, liked it, IMO a craker lens good and value for money. I did not buy it. It is only F4. But that might not be your overiding criterion, but it is mine. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceradini.net Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I have been using it for a few years with 1V, 20D 1D, and I like it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_smith6 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Peter - really good review. With an opinion of user and that's great. That's a pity that canon has 1.6x cameras and not e.g. 1.5x. 17mm on 1.6x camera is not enough. Nikon is going to have full frame camera now so maybe the prices of canon's 5D will be lower. BTW - difference between f/2.8 and f/4 = 2 stops. In article it's 1 stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Great lens. f4 does not bother me - as I use it mostly for landscapes at f11 or so. Go and get it if you have the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrepsom1 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Michael wrote: "BTW - difference between f/2.8 and f/4 = 2 stops." Now that is something very new to me. When did they change that? As for the initial question: Yes, it is a very good lens, but do not use it above f16! It is best at f8-f11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tscheung Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 very sharp images Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 >> is this lens any Good? There are no L lenses which are not good. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainer_t Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 -- "BTW - difference between f/2.8 and f/4 = 2 stops. In article it's 1 stop." f/1 .. f/1.4 .. f/2 .. f/2.8 .. f/4 .. f/5.6 .. f/8 so, f/2.8 -> f/4 is ONE stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_osullivan Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 It's an excellent lens. But if the price is painful, there are very good alternatives in the EFS mount (crop only, won't work on 5D or film) you could consider for half the price. Canon 17-85, Sigma 17-70 and some others. Check out Photozone.de for some reviews on those as well. I have the 17-40 wich stays on my film Elan 7 most of the time and is waiting for it's permanent home on a 5D. But I also have a sigma 17-70 as a walk around lens on my Xti. It's a great lens with great IQ and pretty fast focus for about $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DickArnold Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 It's fine. See my gallery for lighthouse. You can count the tiny bubbles on the 13x19 print. Handheld @ 1/400 about f11. This lens must have been featured in several recent threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_smith6 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Rainer T, Puppy Face, sorry, it's 1 stop and 2 times more light comes to sensor. I don't know why did I think it was 2 stops... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallas_bittle Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 You can never go wrong with L glass. The 17-40 is an excellent one...solid build, great optics...what more can you ask? My only beef with the lens is that on the 1.6x cameras (I have a 30D) 17mm isnt wide enough for my liking. I like the drama of a super wide and for me anyway...the EF 10-22 was a better choice on the crop back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdanmitchell Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 EF 17-40mm f/4 L is a fine lens, though it is good to be aware of its personality quirks. I have used this lens a lot on both crop and FF sensor bodies. Center sharpness on this lens is excellent, outstanding even. It shows some noticeable corner softness at wider apertures. This issue is less significant on a crop sensor body due to the smaller sensor - you'll likely see it at f/4 and perhaps not notice it at f/8. The corner softness issue is more noticeable on full frame. I only shoot it at f/4 on FF if a) I will crop the corners or b) the image is such that corner softness is OK or even good. Like virtually all lenses, it "vignettes" at wide apertures. I don't regard this as a big deal for a bunch of reasons I won't expound upon right now. Both corner softness and vignetting become insignificant at smaller apertures. I often shoot landscapes with this lens on FF, where I rarely shoot wider than f/5.6. On full frame I can shoot it at f/11 or f/16 where the softness and vignetting issues become truly insignificant... and it is my favorite landscape lens. Price is great. Build is great. Focal length range is very useful. Size and weight are fine. This is a great lens for many purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieklein Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Check out the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4. You gain a stop on the wide end and it costs under 300 now. You give up USM though, and build quality a little. I have use the Tamron on a 5D and am satisified, will drop the coin on the 16-35mm next spring though. canon 17-40mm vs. tamron 17-35mm http://nododo.home.comcast.net/ultrawide/ http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/303168-REG/Tamron_AF05N700_17_35mm_f_2_8_4_Di_Autofocus.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jims grabshot Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I have had the 17-40 since 2003. I find it to be very sharp and to have good contrast. The only negatives I have heard are (1) it is not 2.8, and (2) it can show problems in the corners at the wide end at 4.0 or 5.6. I use a 10-D (1.6 crop) so I have not noticed any problems in the corners. Unless you really NEED the 2.8, get it and enjoy it. It is comparable in quality to the 16-35 2.8 at approximately half the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Rebel XT ISO 100 with EF 17-40/4L @ 1/400 - f/4 - Focal Lengtht: 36.0 mm <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6225678-lg.jpg"></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I use this lens with full frame bodies, professionally, quite often. I don't personally need speed in a wide angle zoom, or for that matter, shallow depth of field, so the stop lost from the 16-35mm f2.8 is insignificant to me. It does, however, provide similar or better performance for 1/2 the price. I generally use it around f8 which clears up any corner softness (apparent wide open) and vignetting is not an issue... The only other point worth mentioning, is that to achieve full sealing, it requires a filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now